Writ petitions seeking electrocution compensation are not maintainable where liability involves disputed questions of fact.

The petitioners, the husband and daughter of Smt. Danavva Naik, sought ₹10,68,000 with interest from the State and HESCOM, alleging that she died after coming into contact with a live electrical wire. The judgment records the incident date inconsistently: paragraph 1 states 8 January 2010, while the relief sought and subsequent references state 8 November 2010.

A criminal prosecution arising from the incident ended in acquittal on 6 June 2013.

After issuing notice in September 2015, the petitioners filed this writ petition in December 2015.

HESCOM opposed the petition, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Rekha and also raising limitation.

1. Whether a writ petition seeking compensation for death by electrocution is maintainable where disputed questions of fact arise and an alternative civil remedy is available?

2. Whether the claim was barred by limitation?

In Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Rekha, the Supreme Court held that a writ petition seeking electrocution compensation is not maintainable where disputed questions of fact are involved; the claimant may pursue available remedies before the appropriate forum.

It also held that the multiplier method used under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to electrocution claims; compensation must instead be just, reasonable and fair, having regard to the person’s income and related claims.

Section 57 of the Electricity Act, 2003 addresses a licensee’s liability to pay compensation in specified circumstances but does not prescribe a method for calculating it.

The Court also noted the respondents’ limitation objection, but did not decide it.

The petitioners relied on the High Court’s earlier decision in Rekha to support writ jurisdiction and calculation by the Sarla Verma multiplier method.

The Court held that the Supreme Court had set aside the High Court decisions in Rekha and ruled that writ proceedings are not maintainable where factual disputes arise in an electrocution-compensation claim.

That binding ruling defeated the petitioners’ request for compensation through a writ petition. Although limitation was raised, the Court dismissed the petition on maintainability and did not determine whether the claim was time-barred.

The Court left the petitioners at liberty to pursue any remedy available and permissible under law.